The dismissal of Poland’s complaints over the “Fit for 55” package by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was to be expected, but the government will continue working to change EU regulations, Deputy Climate and Environment Minister Krzysztof Bolesta told PAP. He added that, among other things, the question of revising the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) remains open.
The Court of Justice of the European Union on Thursday dismissed seven complaints filed by Poland concerning legal acts that make up the “Fit for 55” climate package.
Commenting on the CJEU ruling, Deputy Climate and Environment Minister Krzysztof Bolesta told PAP that such a decision could have been expected, given the court’s line of case law. He stressed, however, that every effort had been made to win the case nonetheless.
“The ruling is what it is, but we are working all the time to change the regulations that we consider inconvenient or problematic for Poland,” Bolesta said. He pointed out that the fate of several regulations remains open, including the revision of the EU ETS emissions trading system and the CBAM, the carbon border adjustment mechanism, a levy on emissions embedded in goods imported from outside the EU.
In the deputy minister’s view, the legal route “is always the last resort,” but in this case “it didn’t work out, despite the lawyers’ efforts.” “We are working in another way to change these inconvenient things,” he assured.
The “Fit for 55” package is meant to enable the EU to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared with 1990 levels and to achieve climate neutrality by 2050.
In its complaints, filed in 2023, Poland challenged, among other things, provisions on reducing CO2 emissions, the emissions trading system, energy efficiency and targets for greenhouse gas removals.
Warsaw argued that some of the challenged regulations are fiscal in nature or affect the general structure of a country’s energy supply, and that they should therefore have been adopted unanimously by the member states.
The court found that none of the seven challenged acts “has as its main objective to significantly affect a member state’s [decision] on the choice between different energy sources and on the general structure of [that country’s] energy supply.”
In the CJEU’s assessment, the challenged provisions comply with the principles of proportionality and equal treatment. (PAP)
